Debate contribution: Speech and Language Therapy: Criminal Justice System

Debate contribution by Ms Joanne Bunting on 20 February 2024.

MLA

Ms Joanne Bunting

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

20 February 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Speech and Language Therapy: Criminal Justice System

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4380836

Read the official Assembly record

Text

This is a really interesting topic, and I am grateful to the Members for bringing it forward. At the outset, it may be helpful to contextualise: over 60% of people in prison have speech, language and communication needs, which is a higher figure than is found among the general population. Some of the issues experienced by individuals in the justice system include difficulty understanding spoken words and using language to communicate; difficulties remembering and recalling information accurately; difficulty understanding commonly used legal vocabulary, such as "liable", "remorse", "reparation", "threatening" or "victim"; difficulties in listening and understanding; difficulty with sequencing information to tell a story; difficulties using abstract language, such as metaphors; difficulties staying on topic; difficulties understanding non-verbal communication and relating to others in socially acceptable ways; and difficulty expressing feelings and emotions appropriately, for example, they may use aggressive behaviour instead of words to express themselves. Many young people in justice settings who have speech and language communication needs (SLCNs) have grown up with multiple adverse childhood experiences, including deprivation and poverty, trauma, neglect and abuse. Many are care-experienced or looked-after children. Looked-after children have a much higher rate of involvement with the juvenile justice system than those in the general population. Part of the issue is that the screening processes in prisons are still ineffective. There is no nationally used screening tool for communication needs. Prison staff receive limited training on those vulnerabilities, but we know that the failure to appropriately support people in prison can result in disruptive, aggressive or violent behaviour and increasing self-harm. In the Budget debate yesterday, I mentioned prisoners having problems with addiction, anxiety, depression and their inability to control their emotions. That does not just go away. A prime example of what I describe can still arise on leaving prison. Until the point at which they are released, their life has been under the control and responsibility of others: then they leave. On exiting the gate, they may be sent to a hostel because they are homeless. That hostel can be far from home: I am talking about Belfast to Londonderry or Newry or vice versa. They may have no family support, but they are supposed to get there, while left to their own devices, via public transport, perhaps with a daily requirement for a prescription in Belfast. They make their way to the pharmacy, something goes awry, the miscommunication cycle starts, and boom: they are tired and alone; they have nothing and nobody; they are afraid, anxious and frustrated; and their temper is lost. They are back to square one, defeated. It can feel as though we are teeing them up to fail.

Yes, go ahead.

Thanks, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Member is absolutely right. That is the point that I am trying to make and will go on to emphasise. Interventions in justice settings, such as counselling or education programmes, are often verbal. Therefore, they disadvantage those with prior speech, language and communication needs. The knock-on effect is that those schemes are potentially less likely to contribute positively to reducing rates of reoffending if participants' difficulties and needs go undetected or are misinterpreted as general aggression. That is why a joined-up approach is needed, as the proposer mentioned. There is little point in prison staff being equipped to communicate effectively with prisoners with SLCNs when external providers who deliver rehabilitative or educational initiatives lack the knowledge on how to identify and address the needs of that cohort. Gaps in identifying SLCNs are also exacerbated when sufficient numbers of speech and language therapists are not being trained or in post, as others have mentioned. We have higher rates of SLT vacancies than Scotland and Wales. That limits what can be achieved in rolling out innovative multidisciplinary team-working in other aspects of the system where SLCNs could be addressed. The picture is not all one of gloom, however. Strides have already been made. Recent examples from Maghaberry prison have highlighted a good provision of speech and language therapy there. A number of issues need concerted action. Training is only one part of the jigsaw. We need a sustained funding uplift for our prisons and the wider criminal justice system to ensure that sufficient numbers of trained allied health professionals are working alongside prison staff and to facilitate adequate and ongoing training for staff in justice settings.

Apologies. It is the new placement of the microphones. It should also be noted that the strategic framework for youth justice for 2022-27 and the five-year action plan, led by the Department of Justice and the Youth Justice Agency, place little emphasis on SLCNs. There is perhaps a need for the Minister of Justice to revise those strategies and the operation of the regional care and justice campus to ensure that there is a focused strategy for breaking down communication and language barriers. We support the motion and welcome the focus on breaking down barriers to better engagement between those with speech, language and communication needs in our prisons and youth justice populations and those who care for them in justice settings and the many rehabilitative, restorative and educational programmes in which they participate.

858 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not qualifying

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:40 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification